DPReview TV: Tamron 70-210mm F4 vs. Canon and Nikon OEM lenses

70-200mm F4 zoom lenses may not get as much attention as their faster F2.8 siblings, but for many photographers these lenses hit the perfect sweet spot of price, performance, and weight.

This week, Chris and Jordan go to the Calgary Stampede with pro photographer Kyle Marquardt to shoot the new Tamron 70-210mm F4, available in Canon and Nikon mounts, alongside the Canon and Nikon equivalents. How does the Tamron hold up, and is it a good alternative to the OEM glass? Watch the episode to find out what they think.

Comments

But why wasn't there a SONY FANBOY featured in the review? In this day and age, do we really have to dig through the comments section to hear the SONY FANBOY view? Why can't you just start with the SONY FANBOY commentary and sum up the rest of the details in a TL;DR?

There's a comparison on lensrentals of the latest Sony, Canon and Nikon 70-200 f/4 lenses on lens rentals in the 70-200 f/4 test: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/mtf-tests-for-the-canon-70-200mm-f4-is-ii/ (scroll a bit down)tl;dr: The Sony is visibly less resolving than the other two. The Canon is ahead, but you won't see a noticeable difference towards the Nikon however the Sony mft is enough off to see a slight difference in real world photos.

I remember when I could quietly read content on websites instead of having to watch it. Perhaps that makes me a bit retro? MB of video vs tens of KB of text with markup. Give us the choice of a transcript at least.

We need to note one correction to something mentioned in the video. The Tamron lens does have auto-detect panning when the VC (vibration compensation) mode is enabled. (In the video states that it's necessary to turn VC off when panning photos.)

If you are a Canon or Nikon user for the same money as their f/4 options you could consider the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2. Sure weight is a lot heavir than the f/4 versions, but it's a fair bit better than he Tamron 70-210 f/4 and costs about the same as the Canikon f/4 offerings. Unless weight savings is paramount, I'd take the G2 as it's sharper at 200 and at mfd than the f/4 version.

Hey guys I think DPReview gets it! The Sony people want Sony included! Or else all hell breaks loose. If it makes you feel any better your lens is really sharp guys it really is. You should feel proud of your Sony lens, don't let this article bother you.

DPReview, this message is for you, please add Sony to every article or ELSE! Again guys, your Sony is super sharp, lets just pretend it is so sharp it did not even need to be included. Hope you guys feel better, Thanks, I am pulling for you.

That is a good attitude, you have to like what you have. I personally have the Nikkor 70-210 4-5.6 and I love it because of the size, IQ and the price. I have never owned a really large lens like the ones in the shootout. It is just not for me right now, maybe when I retire.

There is also another alternative that is not being discussed- for the same amount of money, I bought a used Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VRII with a 2 year Mack warranty in Excellent+ condition from a respected retailer. I would imagine one could also find a Canon lens with a similar deal. Aren't most people that opt for a 70-200 F4 really wanting a 70-200 F2.8, but can't afford it, or is it they are after a lens that weighs less?

Not necessarily. If you use your 70-200 for things like landscape, you really don't need 2.8 in most cases (depends on what you're trying to accomplish obviously). Some people just may not don't need the extra shallow DOF, and thus can save some money for something else. When comparing new, there is a decent price different (used is a bit of a different story). Plus f/4 lenses are generally a little lighter too and not as big when compared to their 2.8 versions.

I have the 2.8 70-200 VR but I got mine because while I shoot mostly landscapes but hardly ever at 2.8... I got it so I can do portraits as well with shallow DOF, but not everyone shoots portraits. If I wasn't shooting portraits, I probably would have gotten the f/4 version.

I would get the NIkon 70-300 (preferably the AF-P version despite it's lack of a VR switch; and if it's compatible with your D7100... I can't remember). The Tamron 70-300 I don't think got that great of reviews (either version: the 4-5.6 or 4.5-5.6 from what I read).

@sirhawkeye64 That lens wasn't out when I bought this one. But even if it was, I don't think I'd have chosen it. I actually considered a Tamron 70-300 (I think the reviews on that are not bad at all), used for 180 euros. It was quite cheap and I almost bought it. But the way the 70-200 f/4 feels is just better, to me anyway. Sure, it's much more expensive, but at the time I was looking for a replacement of the Pentax 60-250, which also isn't cheap.

Besides, in the long run, I might get something like a 150-600 or 200-500 as well.

@starbase218 Sorry missed that part about IF you went full frame. The few reviews I read on the Tamron 70-300 made it seem that it was acceptably sharp, but nothing extraordinary. I've learned to accept the fact my 70-200 is heavy in favor of the shallow DOF but people buy different lenses for various reasons and preferences.

To avoid further confusion, we've updated this article's title to make it clear that it's a comparison of the Tamron 70-210mm F4 lens to it's Canon and Nikon equivalents (since the Tamron is available in Canon and Nikon mounts).

@Sam – You're technically correct that the Tamron could be used on a Sony with adapters. That said, we're not going to try to test all products in a category in every video we ever produce. We'll certainly do that at times, but in some cases we're going to be a bit more focused on a specific product or set of products.

The Tamron is available natively in Canon and Nikon mounts, so the very specific question we wanted to address was whether the Tamron is a viable alternative to the OEM lenses from those two companies. Could you adapt the Tamron to other systems? Yes, but in this case that's simply not the question that was being explored.

Shame on DPR for not comparing these Japanese lens against American or Russian made ones. Are they afraid that the American and beloved Russian brands would be way, way superior? Biased media. When will Fox News come up with an online photography review site?

I respect both Canon and Nikon lenses tested, but the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS on my Sony A7RII is a fantastic setup! That Sony lens has surpassed all my expectations as being very sharp, great colors, lightweight and with fast AF. Furthermore, handheld shooting is extremely efficient with the Sony system combining the in-body 5-axis IBIS with the lens' own OSS. It's a really amazing setup.

Clearly it was a miss on DPR's part. An ovbious oversight... Given all the discussion in these comments about it, clearly people are interested in the comparison. Some because of Sony/Nikon/Canon fanboyism, and some because they are seriously interested which performs better to help direct a future purchase.

DPR is free to choose their reviews, aren't they? This video was intended to compare Tamron with Canikon lenses, and that's it.You want Sony in the comparison? Then why not add m43 options, or Pentax 60-250mm f4 or even go forther and add 70-200mm f2.8 lenses in the comparison? There is no end to it."The idea of this video (stated twice) was to compare the Tamron against the OEM options in the two lens mounts it is offered in (EF and F Mount)."

Again, while these lenses may work with an adapter on a Sony camera, the topic of the video is whether the Tamron is a viable alternative for those with “Canon and Nikon systems”. Sony lenses, be they superior or inferior, are completely irrelevant to the discussion. I am perhaps a little twitchy living in a country where our president assumes he must be the topic of every discussion and did not realize the world of photography held a like minded group of enthusiasts. It is great that you have a wide selection of excellent Sony lenses, when they are released in Canon and Nikon mounts I will take note.

"My team wasn't included ... is it because we didn't make the tournament. :( :( lets get drunk and jump on a hotel awning"

No! Its because this article IS NOT meant for Sony users adapting different manufacturers' lenses! This is meant for users that are still using the mirrored cameras. Anyway it would probably make a lot more sense to devote an entire article or video in general to adapters and using the lenses that way rather than include it in this discussion.

As many have said already, this wasn't about comparing the OEM lenses with each other. The specific question was: is the Tamron a better or worse option compared to the OEM lens for someone using one of the two systems for which it is natively available?

Kandid - you are clueless. I shoot in wild caves, and faraway places, and presently in Iceland, and about to go to Greenland. I’ve also shot in Antarctica, Alaska, and the North Atlantic ice. And I have my A7RIII and requisite lenses with me, including the Sony 70-200mm. So, enough with your BS. If anyone is self-deluded it’s you. At least I USE my camera gear, unlike you armchair know-it-alls.

I wonder how good Canon 70-200 f4 II is. I'm planning to get Sony 70-200 f4 for my A7R3 but if Canon's version is much better i can consider it. Also anybody knows if Canon will also make 70-200 2.8 III non IS version? Don't need IS for my Sony camera and it could be the best value/performance 70-200 option for Sony camera.

Actually the further you go in terms of magnification the more important it is to have OiS. That's because in-lens stabilisation is dedicated for the range of the lens whereas [obviously when you think about it] once light hits the sensor there is only a limited range of adjustment that can be made for camera shake.

At shorter focal lengths in-body stabilisation can be phenomenal, but it gets much less effective once the range of movement goes beyond the physical dimensions of the sensor - the longer the range the more this happens.

@Chris2210Yes, i got that but at around 800-$1000 less i'll take lens with same optical formula with no IS. i can crank up ISO to 10 000 where results are still usable when really needed. Happy to not have IS if price is much better :)

Don't know where you get the idea of that sort of saving from. Canon are unlikely to make a non-stabilised version of their lens because they're making them for non-stabilised bodies.

You may be looking at one of the very early models when they didn't include IS, but back then Canon only charged fairly high, rather than completely extortionate prices for their lenses. Off the top of my head I think the only manufacturer that offers current non-IS lenses in this range is the Tamron.

Canon has yet to release an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L II (2nd generation non-IS 70-200/2.8). The general consensus is that they probably never will. The 1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L is still a currently listed lens in Canon's catalog.

Note that the 1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L and the 2001 EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS are two different optical designs apart from the inclusion or exclusion of IS. Ditto with the 1999 EF 70-200mm f/4 L and the 2006 EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS. Two different lenses with two different optical formulae released several years apart.

Is there anything like a 45-130 f/2.5 on any APS-C mount? If not, they'll just end up defaulting to the FF lenses, no?

There actually is a 35-100 f/2 on m4/3 (actually, 4/3 adapted) that would offer full equivalence to these lenses, but my understanding is that while it's a fantastic, stellar lens, it's both discontinued and a beast in terms of weight - rumor is that it would work as an f/1.4 lens, but Oly wanted it to be at peak sharpness wide open, so they limited it to f/2.

I think that if you need FF f/4 equivalent DoF in a zoom, your best option is to go FF.

There is a Fuji FX lens which comes close (50-140 F 2.8) and an non Global Vision DSLR lens from Sigma (50-150 F 2.8). Maybe there are equivalents from other manufacturers. Anyhow I guess one will not find many direct alternatives for tele lenses.

There is the Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 for APS-C. It weighs almost the same as the F4 lenses for full-frame. The good news is that you can reach 225mm equiv. at F2.8 in a 40% lighter lens and with a lighter APS-C body as well. The eqiv. F-stop in FF would be F4.2, when comparing DOF. Nikon makes a lightweight lens for APS-C: 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 VR DX making a 27-210mm FF equiv.

Back in my Canon days I had the Canon EF 70-200 F4 IS I, and was quite happy with performance and IQ. Switched in 2012 to Nikon because back then Canon had no FF body comparable to the D800. Bought later the Nikon 70-200 2,8 VR II, was really impressed by the performance and IQ, but extremely unhappy with the size and weight. Sold the 2,8, bought the 70-200 4 GD VR - and I am completely happy again. For me, both Nikon and Canon F4 IS resp. VR ar on par, excellent lenses.

Here's another complaint that Tokina is /ALWAYS/ left out of these comparisons.

Yeah, they may not have the same caliber of AF technology, but for those of us (landscape photographers for example, among other things) who don't care about AF nearly as much as we care about sheer sharpness, Tokina's 70-200 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8 are both stellar performers that are incredibly sharp even on the newer high-res bodies. The Tokina 70-200 f/4 isn't cheaper than the Tamron, but the 24-70 is ridiculously affordable compared to even the latest third-party options, let alone the name-brands.

Oh well. I know Tokina is the runt of the "big three" third party lens makers. It seems nobody ever thinks of them except back in the day when the 11-16 2.8 DX was the bees knees, before full-frame became so prevalent... They've been offering some amazing glass since then, though.

@noirdesir, Yes, I am 100% certain that the vast majority of third-party comparisions / reviews out there are about Tamron and/or Sigma, and ignore Tokina.

@User, I get that it's not /meant/ to be a "complete shootout". But the title (here on DPR) makes it sound that way. So, I guess what I'm complaining about is the unnecessary clickbait-ification of the overall content.

@ozturert, See my previous response. I get it, the original intention of the video was /ONLY/ to compare the Tamron against Canon/Nikon. But it's still a shame that Tokina simply gets no love.

I understand that you can't always get access to every option on every format when all you want to do is review one brand-new option that just hit the market. And there isn't really a need to. However, you simply cannot call that a "shootout" without at least mentioning the other options available.

And why is the Tokina ignored? Don't tell me kickbacks from Tamron. If Tamron really would have managed to bribe the vast majority of reviewers, there'd be some leaks of it somewhere. When you try to bribe a lot of people, at some point one of them will not accept the bribe and rather tell the world about it.

And the definition of the word 'shootout' is: "A decisive battle, especially a gunfight." In various 'game playing' it is used for tournaments where always two combatants face each other and 'play' until one of them wins and moves onto the next stage. In the context of lens tests, it simply means comparing two or more competitors with the aim to find the winner, the best lens among them. Your criticism of the use of the term 'shootout' is thus rather baseless.

No, of course it's not a conspiracy / payoff situation. I'm not that batty. ;-)

It is simply the fact that Sigma and Tamron are more popular options in the market in general, and Tokina is the lesser with regard to (probably, I don't know) both marketing $$$ spent and total actual sales figures.

Whatever the official definition of a "shootout" is, in photography a lens shootout is almost always a comparison in which ALL similar options are present.

In simpler terms:They wanted to compare Tamron against Canikon lenses.They did not think to compare any other brand against Canikon lenses.Any other brand: Tokina, Sigma, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic.

I'm not a Sony fanboy, but honestly, if you're going to do a "shootout" cover at least the Big Three brands (Sony, Canon and Nikon). You put in Tamron (still a good brand) but you left out Sony. So there should have been at least four lenses in this shootout. That would tell the full story I think.

@Deliverator, you can use both the Canon version or the Nikon version on any Sony mirrorless, really no reason to leave Sony out, unless their camera bag was full :) In the end DP has to make choices if they do not want to cover the whole market, their userbase will let them know if they fumbled up. Fortunately its a video review which I find generally useless, but perhaps the Canikon crowd loves those

Compare two lenses, and people will complain that a third lens wasn't included. Compare three lenses, and people will complain that a fourth lens wasn't included.Compare four lenses, and people will complain that a fifth lens wasn't included.

@Deliverator, thanks I saw that after I made the post. I've just seen way too many times that DPR leaves someone out who is a worthy contender, and granted you can't test everything or do shootouts with all the 24-70's for example, as you'd have probably 8 lenses to compare, DPR obviously chooses what it does and does not want to post or include, which is biased, and probably has lost a little credibility in that regard (at least in my opinion).

Ok, sirhawkeye64, what is acceptable as a testing group?1) Compare two lenses if there are at least five lenses in its category (otherwise when testing only two out of three or four, one obviously has excluded them to bias the results)2) Compare all lenses if there are three to five lenses3) Compare compare only five lenses if there are seven or more lenses it the category

This would mean that if there are six lenses, you could only compare two (or all). Boy, this is getting complicated.

In other posts in this area I had mentioned that I realized the comparison was really against the Tamron (and since they don't have an FE mount version yet, my comment about adding Sony is irrelevant). However, in a more general note, DPR has been a little "selective" in what they include in "shootouts" and comparisons more recently it seems. Granted you can't compare all lenses (for example, all 50mm primes as there are so many of them) but it seems that they should at least cover the three/four major brands (again, not in this case because of the lack of an FE Tamron for this particular lens).

It was offered as a 'shootout" by DPR, not a review. The two are not the same thing.I also want more technical reviews. If I am thinking about buying any new product and I can not test it, I am glad that someone else can.

ozturert - Graphs, charts and studio tests please. User comments are subjective, and not necessarily relevant to everyone's field of work.

A lens is a piece of engineering (unlike a good photo), so I just couldn't care less what Chris or Jordan think about it. I care about how I might use it to make my photos; so just the bare-bones spec and performance parameters is what is useful. An objective review (as dpr used to do) would be very welcome. Is that an unreasonable request of a review site?

@Richard in UK - Agree. A "shootout" is American slang for a field comparison of similar equipment.I would prefer the bench tests that Modern Photography had before they folded.DPR does excellent detailed tests, but are sometimes hard to translate to practical result differences.

If you don't need the depth of field or extra stop of light that f/2.8 offers, or the AF speed of the Tamron, then DEFINITELY consider the Tokina 70-200 f/4 instead. It's likely the sharper option for anyone shopping in the "more affordable than a Nikon/Canon" category...

Not sure which lens you are talking about. I have the Canon 70-200 f4 non IS, and love it. Been a fantastic piece of kit for a decade. Interesting also that when Canon released the 50MP dSLRs that they listed this lens as one of the few that were approved for use with the 5dsrPerhaps Kandid is correct

Which 70-200 f/4? Canon? Nikon? I can attest that some of the older Nikon glass isn't as good as the newer stuff (for example I have an older 70-200 2.8 -- one of the first VR versions--and it has the typical VR issues at slow shutter speeds (odd behavior--blurry images, like at 1/50 - 1/60s but not at 1/30s or 1/15s which is odd behavior but I guess a known "issue" with that lens).

If you have the oldest 70-200 f/4 L, and it is a totally de-centered piece of junk, then why haven't you sent it on for optical calibration yet? It's capable of incredible sharpness, but yours has probably suffered some sort of damage over the years. It happens. Get it serviced!

Tamron is really starting to catch up. I got their 100-400 this spring and I'm in love. Is it as good as a canon of similar range? No, but it didn't cost an arm and leg either.It's pretty darn good though!

Agreed. I got the 15-30 Tamron after going back and forth between it and the Nikon 14-24 (which is NOT stabilized) and am happy with my purchase (I will say this is my second copy--the first copy I had two years ago had issues so I sold it, but this copy I'm happy with--about 90% of the optical quality at 2/3 the price of the Nikon).

The Nikon 14-24 is a great lens, but I couldn't bring myself to buy one new at $1800 + tax (and for me, when spending over $1000 I'd like to have a warranty). It was either the Tamron new with a warranty, or a used Nikon without a warranty.

What? I am shocked and Disappointed at this Sony’s DP Review Site that a Sony Product was not considered. I think it is time for Congress to step in here and do an Investigation on Why at this Sony Site...The 70-200 Sony Lens. Heads should roll, and major firings should take place! I am totally shocked! The Outrage of this Outrageous Behavior.

Would not the performance of a lens be dependent on the computer it is attached to?A Nikon D750, D850 I know perform differently. Not to mention firmware loaded if there is even a option there. The test here should be Tamron on a Canon and Nikon body and if they make something for Sony full frame.Heck a camera body with IBIS and no IBIS is a difference in the general sense

it begs the question, is the sony crazy good compared to these three? or some simpler innocent reason why its isnt taking part in the shootout

sony lenses in certain categories like the 1 inch compacts absolutely crucify the other offerings like the rx100 lens vs panny 1 inch and canon 1 inch which are terribly avg to poor ... im not a fan of the rx100 but props to its iq and stellar lenses

and ive read reviews of the beastly large sony full frame lenses that sacrifice size for superb IQ .... just wondering

Just to be clear, Chris and Jordan didn’t write the headline. The intent of this episode was always to compare the Tamron to the OEM lenses for Nikon and Canon (since those are the mounts for which it’s available) to see if was a good alternative to those products. That’s it.

In retrospect, a different headline may have set expectations more clearly.

I really enjoyed this review like always with Chris and Jordan, I think what would have made things perfectly clear would have been two different reviews:- tamron vs nikon- tamron vs canonMixing the two in the same review is easier, but brought some confusion in the first place.

@otto k: What are you talking about? You are disagreeing with me by repeating my OP? I did not say that they must test them on the same camera. Obviously, that would not work. And since they did not (because it would not make sense), they are not testing lenses only.

you have to realize the canon's 70-200 f4.0 II has one fluorite element which is mostly reserved for most expensive canon big whit primes, which produces an incredible sharp and contrasty shot and renders beautiful color saturation! i had one of the older f4.0 IS model of this lens and loved it bu i think my name is written on one the new ones :-) canon and probably Nikon have decades of experience in producing 70-200 lenses, Sony is only a "wanna be" new comer!

@brendon1000...i was just watching the world medal presentation to the winner of the World Cup soccer, and regrettably i have to say, there wasn't a single, Sony rig, all white and black (canon, nikon) lenses and cameras. the old grand dads are not doing too bad, eh ;-)

Canon and Nikon are both releasing pro mirrorless systems that will directly compete with their own DSLR line up. That too 8 years after Sony ! Wonder why Canon and Nikon are willing to cannibalise their sales if DSLRs are the future ? :P

"And comparing Ford mustang to a Ford truck is as ridiculous as saying that the Canon 1300d will spoil its 5d mk 4 sales. Totally different segments!"

I guess vscd's point was exactly that, namely that mirrorless and DSLRs are totally different segments, and therefore the former won't be cannibalising the latter. I disagree, but I think that was his point.

So that means the Canon 5d mk 4 and A7rIII are two different segments and Canon has absolutely nothing to worry about the Sony A7 III and A7rIII since they belong to a totally different segment and anyone looking at buying the 5d mk 4 will never consider a Sony A7rIII since its a different segment :)

Somebody should inform Dpreview to never compare mirrorless and DSLR cameras since they are different segments

Correct. The mirrorlessguys think they replace or compete with DSLRs. It's not the case... even Sony build them parallel to the Alpha 99. So, there is nothing "eating" from Canon, there will be both systems soon and I can imagine to get a mirrorless fullframe as a second cam. But I'll surely buy the next DSLR for the main-jobs. They still have their big advantages...

@vscd...i agree with your point! there are many people that use dual brand or MLC/DSLR users and i find that very interesting and acceptable--but the problem is that most Sony guys think that DSLRs are dinosaurs and people should drop their DSLRs and adopt MLC cameras. i find that notion laughable. it is like saying people should junk their Lexus and buy BMW automobile because it is technologically superior to Lexus autos. well, that is not gonna happen, i am gonna hang on to my Lexus because i love it, i don't care what is under its hood. i love DSLRs and can't wait for canon to introduce their 5DsR II.

@Battersea - Point accepted ! Canon is going to launch a pro mirrorless system 4 years after Sony not 8 years.

Also it remains to be seen if Canon keeps the same EOS-M mount.

@1Dx4me - I was being deliberately facetious regarding the grumpy old men mainly because of your wannabe new comer statement

In reality I shoot weddings and events for a living and I have had the good fortune to use all 3 systems professionally . I have used the older 5d mk 3 extensively along with the D750 and both were fantastic cameras in their own right. The speed especially is something no Sony camera has managed to match till date.

That said I now feel personally my Sony A7 III is superior to the Canon 5d mk 4 and Nikon D750 is most areas when shooting weddings. And many of my colleagues have either shifted or admitted that Sony has now completely bridged the gap at least with regard wedding photography. Of course DSLRs won't be obsolete ! But the DSLRs are no longer superior.

DSLRs are still superiour in some specs which are more important in professional usage. The sensor is only a small fraction of a whole system... and even there the D850 should be on the top right now. A new Canon fullframe mirrorless, weathersealed with full CPS support and the Canon-lenslineup would be accepted in professional use before any Sony comes close. Even if Sony was a few years earlier in the market.

Sony has good sensors. That's it. Sensors can be replaced, but you have to live with Sony. Which I don't want...

er - I think if you watch the vid it IS about the lenses - and the Canon is better - according to them.........sorry.......Also the 5DSR has more resolution than the Nikon......sorry again.........but you are correct (if irrelevant) the autofocus IS better on the Nikon.....well done......

I find the AF on my 5Dsr to be excellent, you just have to set it up correctly, which doesn't work so well on review sites that use the defaults as it's all they have time for. That said I think the D850 AF is better at higher frame rates, but I don't get to do those...

I have the Nikon (used) and if I'd have to choose now I might go for the Nikon again. Close focus performance is important to me and it seems to be better there. The bokeh of the Tamron may be nicer but that's not as important to me. Focus breathing is way better and it has a better stabiliser as well.

@arbux Absolutely. Admittedly I don't need the fastest AF available, and the optics are solid. If I wanted the best of the best on my body I'd use the FE 70-200 F4, but I'm currently enjoying the extra $1,000 saved...

"Alpha" guys need to admit Sony gear is not as good as the 2 big ones, yet!!! they can talk about Alpha technology all they want but the silent huge majority won't buy it, simple as that :-D canon 70-200 lenses have been around for 20+ years and Sony's? just a few years!

And a Sony shooter if they wanted, could just use the Canon 70-200 which performs well on a Sony body. Still, it would have been nice to see a comparison to the Sony lens - perhaps it was left out intentionally.

@MikeRan the ef to e adapter by metabones has an optical element. So even if you did mount the tamron ef to sony by adapter it wouldn't be a fair comparison as there's one more glass element. It's not meant for sony,,, so there's no point in comparing tamron glass made for canon to a sony lens.

More about gear in this article

Canon has announced a new version of its popular 70-200mm F4L tele-zoom. The new Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS II USM features numerous improvements over its predecessor, including 5 stops of stabilization and a reduced minimum focus distance.

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.